Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/305

 The Causes of Divorce regard Dr. Lichtenberger's assertion as to this supposed transformation in family in stitutions within so brief a period as a chal lenge to debate, for such changes of a funda mental rather than secondary nature as are assumed to have taken place would appear too vast to be explainable by the general line of reasoning which he adopts. That the ratio of real divorces to marriages has increased, however. cannot possibly

be denied.‘

This increase is to be attributed

in our judgment to the following causes, which Dr. Lichtenberger. following Professor Willcox, approves: "The Popularization of Law," "The Emancipation of Women," “The Increase of Industrialisrn," and “The Spread of Discontent." There is another cause to which some importance must be attributed, “The Age of Consent," but as to the latter there is some disagreement. Professor Willcox and some others are of the opinion that early marriages are freest from divorce. Dr. Lichtenberger and others conclude that later marriages are more lasting. It would be hard to prove either of these contentions as a broad general proposition. The causes associated with religious beliefs are properly recognized, Dr. Lichtenberger expressing the view that social and economic changes contribute to the sudden increase of their activity. In a general way, therefore, Dr. Lichtenberger is in close sympathy with Professor Willcox‘s reasoning ("The Divorce Problem: A Study in Statistics"). We are glad to see, however, that he dissents

from Professor Willcox's view that "laxity in changing and administering the law" is one of the causes of more numerous divorces. He rightly observes that the general trend of divorce legislation has been toward the adoption of restrictive measures. To Dr. Lichtenberger's elaboration of the action of these various causes there seems to be only one serious criticism. Professor Willcox took pains to include “The Spread of Discontent." This factor might have received fuller treatment in this monograph. With Dr. Lichtenberger it comes to mean lThat the increase in the rate of divorces has been retty nearl as great in Europe as in the Unite States is t e inference to be drawn from a article recently ublished in the Rifarma Socials, uofed b the pril American Review of Reviews see p. 4 infra). This need not be surprising, however, when one considers the development of altered conditions of litical and social senti ment, the evidences 0 which are continually multiplying.

285

purely social and economic discontent. The pressure of modern industrial life has brought about a struggle for comforts and luxuries which affects every class of society. New avenues of economic activity have been opened to woman. and her sense of inde pendence has been stimulated and her individuality strengthened by these new opportunities and wants. Disruption of the family has resulted, as we interpret Dr. Lichtenberger-‘s arguments, from the creation of spiritual and physical wants which cannot be satisﬁed, and from her deeper sense of rights which will be protected by the law and which she need not hesitate to assert as proper grounds for dissolution of the marriage tie. We ﬁnd ourselves unable, however, to follow the author's reasoning on this particular point. That intensiﬁed competition and the sharper social rivalry resulting from advanced standards of living may here and there have strained marriage to the breaking point, because of the inability of the institution to adapt itself forthwith to changed economic conditions, is readily conceivable. How the growing readiness of woman to enter business occupations could of itself serve to bring about a fundamental disruption of the family, however, apart from those remedial considerations with which we are in no way concerned, is diﬁicult to understand. Obviously anything which would promote woman's economic productive ness could have no other effect but to increase the eﬁ’iciency of the family and put it in a better position to recover the lost ground which may have been the penalty of altered economic conditions. Escape from Dr. Lichtenberger's seemingly pardoxical posi tion is to be found by further development of the influence of the “Spread of Discon tent." Not only has there been a growing social and economic discontent, but there has also been a growing domestic discontent. The wife is less satisﬁed than formerly with an arrangement which deprives her of directive power over the affairs of the family, and as she has come to insist to a growing extent on an equal voice with that of her husband in the management of the interests of the family, irreconcilable differences and estrange rnents have been far more likely to arise than under the old regime. It is to be re gretted that Dr. Lichtenberger's strong woman's rights prejudices, as evidenced by some heated denunciations of what he